Do I Have A Case?

Please leave this field empty.

(213) 232-3128
Toll Free: 844-PAY-WAGE

Click Here For Free Consultation

Blogs

A Californian and former WeWork employee is suing the co-working startup company valued at an estimated $15 billion for wrongful termination, unpaid overtime, and retaliation. The female was an associate community manager, who managed a number of the company’s Bay Area locations. She alleges WeWork’s wrongfully fired her for telling other employees about alleged violations of California Labor Code and for refusing to sign an arbitration agreement put in front of her.

“These companies are making a lot of money on the backs of misclassified workers who are often underpaid for their long hours, and that isn’t fair,” said the claimant’s attorney Ramsey Hanafi in a BuzzFeed online report.1

Wrongful Termination Claims Against WeWork

WeWork Unpaid Work | Los Angeles Wrongful Termination Lawyer

Woman businesswoman with giant alarm clock

A former employee of HR startup TriNet, the claimant became savvy with labor standards and realized that her 50-to-60-hour workweek entitled her to overtime pay, not to mention work-related breaks that she wasn’t receiving. The claimant, who made a salary of $42,000 in 2015, also believed she was miscategorized in her position, and the she was entitled to overtime, meal and rest breaks for working as many hours she did a week. She also believes she is entitled to reimbursement of cell phone expenses. The claimant is seeking $25,000 or more in damages against WeWorks.

According to news reports, here’s a list of job responsibilities or duties the claimant said she was required to perform:2

  • Replace kegs of free beer in community room
  • Host parties
  • Gave visitors office tours
  • Worked in a reception capacity at the front desk

Defense Strategy

WeWork is trying to force the case into private arbitration, because of a clause the claimant signed upon being hired stating that employees are required to arbitrate disputes and disagreements out of court. WeWork also lawyered up with a well-known litigator to fight the case aggressively. The claimant filed the case in San Francisco Superior Court, but WeWorks petitioned and won the right to have the case heard before a California Federal Court. WeWorks also filed a petition in New York court, where the company is headquartered, to force the claimant to arbitrate the case privately in New York instead going before a jury in California. A decision from the New York judge is due soon.

Both the claimant and WeWorks agree that she was fired for not signing the new arbitration agreement.

Pressure Mounting for Employee Benefits at Startups

Enough disputes have emerged over the last year showing that “on-demand” workers at companies like Uber and non-technical jobs that share space at collectives want basic benefits afforded hourly wage type employees. Proving wrongful termination can be a difficult thing to do. There’s also plenty of laws on the books that prevent companies from wrongfully terminating and misclassifying them.

Contact a Los Angeles Wrongful Termination Lawyer at Moon and Yang Professional Corporation

The best thing to do if you feel you’ve been wrongfully terminated from your job because of unfair business practices is to contact a Los Angeles wrongful termination lawyer at the Moon and Yang Professional Corporation. Call today at (213) 232-3128 or by emailing us using the contact form on this page.

______________________________________________________________________________________________

1“WeWork Is Being Sued By An Ex-Employee” published in BuzzFeed, March 2016.

2“WeWork sued by former employee over California Labor Law” published in TNW News, March 2016.

Read more

EEOC Files Groundbreaking Sexual Orientation Discrimination Suits

EEOC Files Groundbreaking Sexual Orientation Discrimination Suits

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently filed the first-ever federal sexual orientation discrimination cases.

These landmark cases have been filed on behalf of two workers – a male and a female. While one case names Scott Medical Health Center as the defendant, the other has been filed against Pallet Companies, dba IFCO Systems NA.

Both cases alleges violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex and retaliation.

With the filing of these two suits, EEOC is continuing to solidify its commitment to ensuring that individuals are not discriminated against in workplaces because of their sexual orientation… While some federal courts have begun to recognize this right under Title VII, it is critical that all courts do so. – EEOC General Counsel David Lopez has explained.

Brief Background: Grounds for Filing under Title VII

Grounds for filing these cases stem from a July 2015 federal court ruling (Baldwin v. Department of Transportation, Appeal No. 0120133080), which determined that sexual orientation discrimination is, by its very nature, discrimination because of sex.

In this case, the EEOC pointed to Title VII’s prohibition of sexual discrimination, finding that:1

  1. Sexual orientation discrimination necessarily involves treating workers less favorably because of their sex, and sexual orientation as a concept cannot be understood without reference to sex.
  2. Sexual orientation discrimination is rooted in noncompliance with sex stereotypes and gender norms, and employment decisions based on such stereotypes and norms have long been found to be prohibited sex discrimination under Title VII.
  3. Sexual orientation discrimination punishes workers because of their close personal association with members of a particular sex, such as marital and other personal relationships.

The Case against Scott Medical Health Center

This case, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, alleges that Scott Medical Health Center should be liable for the alleged sexual harassment of a gay male employee. According to the complaint, the allegations include that:

  • A manager allegedly referred to the plaintiff using several anti-gay epithets.
  • The manager made highly offensive comments about the plaintiff’s sexuality and gay lifestyle.
  • Although the plaintiff lodged a complaint with the clinic director, the director responded that the manager was just “doing his job.” The director is also accused of refusing to take any action to stop the alleged harassment.
  • After enduring weeks of taunting by his manager, which allegedly created a hostile work environment for the plaintiff, he quit.

The Case against Pallet Companies

This case, which has been field in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, claims that Pallet Companies should be liable for the alleged sexual harassment of a lesbian female employee. According to this complaint, the allegations include that:

  • A supervisor allegedly made several comments regarding the plaintiff’s sexual orientation and appearance, like “I want to turn you back into a woman” and “You would look good in a dress.”
  • The supervisor made lewd and/or explicit sexual gestures towards the plaintiff. For instance, the supervisor reportedly blew a kiss at the plaintiff and circled his tongue in a sexually suggestive manner.
  • The plaintiff attempted to report the alleged harassment by lodging a complaint with upper management and calling the employee hotline to make a report.
  • A few days after filing her complaint, Pallet Companies allegedly retaliated against her by firing her.

As more news about the progress and outcomes of these groundbreaking cases becomes available, we will report the latest updates to you here, in a future blog. Until then,  tell us what you think about these sexual orientation discrimination cases on Facebook & Google+.

Contact a Los Angeles Discrimination Lawyer at Moon & Yang 

If you have been the target of any type of workplace discrimination or harassment, contact a Los Angeles discrimination lawyer at the Moon & Yang for answers about your rights, potential case and best options for recovery and justice. Call us at (213) 232-3128 or email us via the contact form on this page.

Read more

Dean Sujit Choudhry of the University of California, Berkeley School of Law is being sued for sexual harassment by his former executive assistant.

The complaint, which was originally filed in Alameda County Superior Court, names Dean Choudhry, as well as the University of California Board of Regents, as defendants.

A thorough investigation of this case found that Dean Choudhry’s behavior in this situation violated policy, and that he demonstrated a failure to understand the power dynamic and the effect of his actions on the plaintiff personally and in her employment. – Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost Claude Steele told a local news channel earlier this year

Choudhry, who was appointed as the Dean of the Berkeley School of Law in 2015, has been forced to take an “indefinite leave of absence” from his post as a result of these sexual harassment allegations.

A Closer Look at the Sexual Harassment Allegations 

UC Berkeley Law School Dean Accused of Sexual Harassment

UC Berkeley Law School Dean Accused of Sexual Harassment

According to court documents associated with this case, the plaintiff alleges that Dean Choudhry’s made inappropriate advances towards her for nearly eight months, starting in 2014.

In addition to alleging sexual harassment, the plaintiff is also contending:

  • Failure to take reasonable steps to prevent harassment and retaliation
  • Retaliation
  • Infliction of emotional distress
  • Assault
  • Battery
  • Failure to discharge a mandatory statutory duty.

As the complaint explains, the plaintiff reportedly became the target of unwanted sexual advances in July 2014, when Dean Choudhry allegedly started to give her bear hugs and kisses.

The plaintiff reported these unwanted advances to UC Berkeley’s Office for the Prevention of Harassment and Discrimination (OPHD), triggering an investigation of the allegations. During the investigation, Dean Choudhry reportedly admitted to kissing, hugging, massaging and/or caressing the plaintiff several times a week. Ultimately, the OPHD determined that Dean Choudhry had violated the University’s sexual harassment policies.

Taking corrective action, the University disciplined Dean Choudhry by reducing his salary by 10 percent for a year and demanding that he write an apology letter to the plaintiff.

UC Berkeley Alleged to Have Fostered Harassment

The allegations in this case are not only focused on Dean Choudhry. They are also pointed at the Board of Regents.

In fact, the complaint alleges that, following the OPHD investigation, the Board of Regents did not terminate Dean Choudhry from his position, opening up the possibility for repeat violations and continued sexual harassment in the future.

The damages that the plaintiff is seeking from the Dean and the UC Board of Regents have not be disclosed, and it remains to be seen whether the Dean and the Board will fight these allegations in court – or whether both defendants will make an effort to resolve this case prior to trial via an out-of-court (and likely confidential) settlement.

When more news about this case becomes available, we’ll report the latest updates to you here, in a future blog. In the meantime, please share your opinions with us on Facebook & Google+.

Contact a Los Angeles Sexual Harassment Lawyer at Moon & Yang 

If you been the target of workplace sexual harassment – or if an employer has violated your rights as a worker in any way, you can turn to an experienced Los Angeles sexual harassment lawyer at Moon & Yang for answers about your options for justice and recovery. Contact us by calling (213) 232-3128 or by emailing us using the contact form on this page to schedule an initial consult with one of our attorneys and find out more about how we can help you.

Read more

A former employee of Xtetic World Inc., a North Hollywood cosmetic retailer, has recently filed a wrongful termination lawsuit against the company, alleging that she was illegally  dismissed from her job two days after she told her employer that she was pregnant. She is also alleging that her supervisor asked her to consider getting an abortion.

Plaintiff Sues for Unspecified Damages, Multiple Reasons

Woman claims wrongful termination over pregnancy

Woman claims wrongful termination over pregnancy

According to court documents associated with this case,the plaintiff, a 25-year-old Lancaster woman, is seeking an undisclosed amount of damages for the alleged wrongful termination.

In addition to suing for the alleged illegal dismissal, the plaintiff is also suing for:

  • Pregnancy discrimination, including failure to provide pregnancy disability leave
  • Retaliation
  • Failure to prevent discrimination
  • Harassment.

A Closer Look at the Allegations 

The complaint provides the following details about the timeline of events related to the alleged wrongful termination, pregnancy discrimination and harassment:

  1. In March 2015, the plaintiff started working at Xtetic World as a social media coordinator.
  2. The following month, the plaintiff discovered that she was pregnant. Happy about the news, she wanted to inform her new employer of her pregnancy so that plans could be made for her scheduled maternity leave.
  3. The plaintiff alleges that, when she informed her supervisor about the pregnancy (on April 14, 2015), the supervisor reportedly replied, “We need somebody who is committed to being here full-time. Have you thought about getting an abortion?”
  4. The plaintiff claims that she was shocked and sickened by the statement and that she responded to her supervisor with, “No, I plan on keeping my baby. What you said was not right.”
  5. Two days later, the plaintiff was let go from her job. At that time, she was reportedly not given any explanation for the firing, nor was told that she had done anything wrong. She also claims that, during the course of her employment, she had never been formally disciplined or written up for any misconduct.
  6. Consequently, court documents explain that timing of the plaintiff’s dismissal is “clearly no coincidence,” as she was fired immediately after informing her supervisor of her pregnancy.

Xtetic World Inc. has not issued any formal statements about these allegations. It remains to be seen whether the company will take this matter to court or attempt to resolve it sooner via an out-of-court settlement.

As additional updates about the progress of this case become available, we’ll bring you the latest news here, in a future blog. Until then, we invite you to share your comments and opinions about this case with us on Facebook & Google+.

Contact a Los Angeles Wrongful Termination Lawyer at Moon & Yang

Have you been the target of a wrongful termination or any type of workplace discrimination or harassment? If so, call a Los Angeles wrongful termination lawyer at Moon & Yang at (213) 232-3128 to find out more about your rights, potential case, and best options for justice. You can also email us using the contact form on this page.

__________________________________________________________________

1: Filed with Los Angeles Superior Court in March 2016

Read more

The California Bar Association has recently been named the defendant in a $15 million lawsuit alleging wrongful termination. While the plaintiff is reportedly seeking $10 million in damages for the alleged wrongful termination, she is also requesting $5 million in punitive damages, as she claims that the State Bar was aware of its misconduct and refused to take corrective action.

A Closer Look at the Allegations 

California State Bar Sued for $15 Million over Alleged Wrongful Termination

California State Bar Sued for $15 Million over Alleged Wrongful Termination

According to documents related to this case, the plaintiff worked as an administrative assistant at the California State Bar Association offices. When she reportedly decided to blow the whistle on the State Bar for alleged ethical violations, as well as alleged deceit, deception, and incompetence, she claims that the Bar retaliated against her by wrongly terminating her.

As the complaint details, the plaintiff is specifically alleging that:

  1. She denied a questionable reimbursement request (for nearly $30,000) made by a board member. That denied claim, however, was payed out by State Bar funds.
  2. The State Bar mismanaged money on several occasions. In one instance, the director reportedly took a trip to San Francisco for a three-hour hearing; however, he stayed in the city for four nights at the extravagant Palace Hotel. The Bar agreed to pay for the entire stay.
  3. Several qualified employees have been terminated from the Bar, and none of them had reportedly committed any misconduct or ethical violation during the course of their employment. “They were terminated since they were thought to be friends of the prior leader of the bar,” the plaintiff has explained.
  4. In an attempt to hide a massive backlog of cases, the former chief prosecutor moved a number of discipline cases to the deferred list. Later, those cases were transferred back onto the active status list.
  5. The State Bar ignored hundreds of complaints of fraud filed by Mexican workers, who alleged that they had been defrauded of money through an American citizenship scam.

The Bar’s Response to the Allegations of Wrongful Termination

The California State Bar has responded to the plaintiff’s claims, denying all of the allegations. Leaders at the Bar have explained that they intend to mount a vigorous defense to the allegations.

It remains to be seen how this case will be resolved – and whether it will make it to trial. As more news about the progress and outcome of this case become available, we’ll report the latest news to you here, in a future blog. Until them, share your opinions about this case and the allegations against the California Bar Association with us on Facebook & Google+.

Contact a Los Angeles Wrongful Termination Lawyer at Moon & Yang 

If you have been the target of wrongful termination or retaliation – or if any of your worker’s rights have been violated, you can turn to an experienced Los Angeles wrongful termination lawyer at Moon & Yang for answers about your recovery options.

Contact us by calling (213) 232-3128 or by emailing us using the contact form on this page. Our skilled attorneys are ready to help you obtain the justice – and compensation – to which you may be entitled.

Read more

Multi-national communications giant AT&T Inc. has agreed to pay a $250,000 settlement to resolve a federal disability discrimination case, according to authorities at the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). This case alleged that AT&T failed to accommodate one of its visually impaired employees at offices in Puerto Rico.1

Details of the Disability Discrimination Case

AT&T Settles Disability Discrimination Suit for $250,000

AT&T Settles Disability Discrimination Suit for $250,000

According to court documents associated with this case, the disabled employee began working for AT&T in 2001 as a switch technician. He reportedly began losing his eyesight in 2008 as a result of suffering from diabetes and took some time off of work.

In 2009, the plaintiff’s doctor cleared him to return to work. At that time, the plaintiff reportedly requested adaptive software to assist him in carrying out his work duties; however, AT&T failed to respond to the man’s requests, removed him from his position and did not allow him to return to work.

In 2011, the EEOC accused AT&T of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

It is important for employers to take accommodation requests from qualified employees with disabilities seriously and to respond to them in a timely manner…The requirement by federal law to engage in the interactive process with an employee cannot be ignored. – EEOC San Juan Director William Sanchez 

Terms of the Settlement

To resolve this case, AT&T has reportedly agreed to the following conditions:

  • Reinstate the plaintiff to a new position in its San Juan location
  • Provide him reasonable working conditions that fully comply with the ADA
  • Conduct yearly disability training for managers in Puerto Rico
  • Post notifications about the disability lawsuit case in its Puerto Rico locations to educate employees and raise awareness about the rights disabled workers have
  • Engage in affirmative recruiting of visually impaired job candidates.

Reasonable versus Unreasonable Workplace Accommodations for Visually Impaired Employees

This case (and settlement) underscores the importance of providing reasonable accommodations for disabled workers. While reasonable accommodations can come in various forms (depending on the nature of an employee’s impairments), for visually impaired employees, some examples of reasonable accommodationsinclude (but are by no means limited to) providing or allowing for:

  • A closed circuit television system (CCTV) to enable reading of printed materials
  • An external computer screen magnifier
  • Digital recorders
  • Software to read information on computer screens
  • An optical scanner to convert printed documents into an electronic format
  • Refreshable Braille displays
  • Braille embossers
  • Documents in an accessible format, such as in large print, Braille, a recorded format, or on a computer disk
  • The use of guide dogs at work
  • Disabled-friendly employment tests
  • An assistant to read printed materials
  • Working from home
  • Any other technology that can help visually impaired workers perform their job duties.

Contact a Los Angeles Discrimination Lawyer at Moon & Yang

If you have experienced workplace disability discrimination – or any violation of your employee rights, contact a Los Angeles discrimination lawyer at Moon & Yang to find out more about your options for recovery and justice. You can contact us by calling (213) 232-3128 or by emailing us using the contact form on this page.

______________________________________________________________________

1EEOC press release discussing this case & settlement

2According to the EEOC

Read more

A striking pattern has emerged for working women over the age of 50, according to the findings of a recent study conducted by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER).1

That pattern indicates that, as women age, they are more likely to become the targets of workplace age discrimination.

The number of new age-bias claims in 2008 rose by 29% from 2007, according to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.2

Workplace Age Discrimination against Women: A Closer Look at the Study

Women Shown Door Over Age | Los Angeles Age Discrimination Attorney

Women Being Shown the Door Over Old Age

Looking to evaluate the nature and scope of age discrimination against working women, NBER researchers developed more than 40,000 mock applications for jobs in 12 cities.

These applications were crafted to apply for positions in one of four categories:

  • Office administration jobs
  • Retail sales positions
  • Security guard jobs
  • Janitorial positions.

For each of these categories, mock applications were developed for both  male and female applicants of different ages, with the categories being:

  • Young applicants, who ranged in age from 29 to 31 years old
  • Middle-aged applicants, who ranged in age from 49 to 51 years old
  • Elderly applicants, who ranged in age from 64 to 66 years old.

After sending out these applications and analyzing employers’ responses, researchers found that elderly females were less likely to be called back than men in the same age category.

Additionally, the findings indicated that:

  • For the jobs in the office administration, retail sales, and security industries, hiring managers were less likely to call back applicants in the elderly category.
  • Overall, the elderly category saw a 35 percent lower callback rate than those associated with the young and middle-aged categories.

Proving Workplace Age Discrimination: What You Can Do

While the findings of the NBER study strongly suggest that women are very likely to come up against workplace age discrimination as they get older, proving when this type of discrimination has occurred can be challenging. After all, employers will not necessarily cite a female worker’s age when overlooking them for a job, promotion, etc. – or when demoting or firing them.

Although that can be disconcerting to consider, the good news is that there are some steps (listed below) that can be taken to document workplace age discrimination – and taking these steps can be very helpful to proving discrimination when it’s time to hold an employer accountable for violating your rights:

  • Keep a journal, and record any incident of age discrimination. Be sure to note the date of each occurrence, as well as who was involved.
  • Keep a copy of any and all performance reviews.
  • Ask for an exit interview and reason for separation if you are let go.
  • Have a copy of your employment contract on hand, as well as your journal (and any other records you have been keeping), when it’s time to consult an attorney and find out more about your options for justice.

Contact a Los Angeles Age Discrimination Attorney at Moon & Yang 

Have you been the target of workplace age discrimination? If so, you can turn to an experienced Los Angeles age discrimination attorney at Moon & Yang for aggressive, effective legal advocacy. Contact us today by calling (213) 232-3128 or by emailing us using the contact form on this page.

_______________________________________________________________________

1NBER study

2“Older Women Are Being Forced Out of the Workforce” published in Harvard Business Review, March 2016.

3“Is It Harder for Older Workers to Find Jobs? New and Improved Evidence from a Field Experiment” published in the National Bureau of Economic Research, October 2015.

Read more

Equal Pay Day [is] the date in the current year that represents the extra days a typical woman working full-time would have to work just to make the same as a typical man did in the previous year. – A statement issued by the White House on April 11, 2016

April 12th marks National Equal Pay Day, a commemoration to the fight to close the gender pay gap in the U.S.

While various organizations and authorities are working diligently to try to eliminate the gender pay gap and ensure that every worker receives fair compensation for his or her labor – regardless of their gender identity, we at Moon & Yang are doing our part to support this effort by sharing some important facts about the gender pay gap via the following infographic.

We encourage you to share this infographic with colleagues and others to spread the word about National Equal Pay Day. If you currently need help pursuing justice after being the target of wage theft or workplace discrimination, however, don’t hesitate to contact a Los Angeles employment attorney at Moon & Yang.

Facts about the Gender Pay Gap for National Equal Pay Day

Facts about the Gender Pay Gap for National Equal Pay Day

Contact a Los Angeles Employment Attorney at Moon and Yang Professional Corporation

For aggressive, effective legal advocacy in the fight against wage theft, contact an experienced Los Angeles employment attorney at the Moon and Yang Professional Corporation. At Moon & Yang, our lawyers are trial attorneys who are tenacious, hard-working, and quick in obtaining results on behalf of their clients.

Contact us today by calling (213) 232-3128 or by emailing us using the contact form on this page to find out more about our services and how we can help you.

From our offices based in Los Angeles, our trusted lawyer provide superior service to clients throughout Southern California, including those in Koreatown, Orange, Anaheim, Santa Ana, Buena Park, Garden Grove and throughout Los Angeles and Orange Counties.

 

Read more

Important Facts about Min. Wage

Important Facts about Min. Wage

With the minimum wage in California set to increase to $10 in the New Year, now is a good time to point out some important facts about minimum wage and workers’ rights.

The Facts about Minimum Wage

  1. California is among 29 states that have set their own higher minimum wage – This refers to a minimum wage that is higher than the federal minimum wage of $7.25/hour. According to Pew Research, this group of states includes more than 60 percent of the working population in the nation. Just as individual states have set their own minimum wages, so too have some larger cities within these states. Within the city of Los Angeles, for instance, the minimum wage is set to increase to $15 by 2020.
  2. The minimum wage is the same for minor and adult workers – In other words, California minimum wage laws do not distinguish between the ages of workers. These statutes simply dictate what he minimum wage rate of pay is (and when there may be exceptions to this rate, based on industry, etc.).
  3. Waivers cannot get employers out of paying minimum wage – In other words, employers are not legally permitted to pay workers less than the minimum wage just because workers have signed a waiver. The obligation to pay minimum wage (and the higher of that between state and federal minimum wages) is a legal requirement employers cannot sidestep via waivers.
  4. Employers can be sued for violation minimum wage laws – And these lawsuits can result in back pay, back benefits and possibly other damages for workers who have been deprived of minimum wages. Additionally, it’s important to note here that, if an employer retaliates against a worker who enquires about minimum wages or questions why (s)he is not being paid minimum wage, workers will generally have another claim against these employers (i.e., a retaliation claim).

Contact a Los Angeles Employment Attorney at Moon and Yang Professional Corporation

If your employer has failed to pay you the wages you have earned – or if you have been the target of employer retaliation, you can turn to an experienced Los Angeles employment attorney at the Moon and Yang Professional Corporation for aggressive, effective legal advocacy in your pursuit of justice. At Moon & Yang, our lawyers bring substantial experience, legal knowledge and resources to both simple and complex legal matters. In in various legal areas, we have helped our clients achieve short-term and long-term goals while keeping a realistic assessment of what to expect in the future.

To find out more about our services and how we can help you, contact us today by calling (213) 232-3128 or by emailing us using the contact form on this page.

From our offices based in Los Angeles, our trusted lawyer provide superior service to clients throughout Southern California, including those in Koreatown, Orange, Anaheim, Santa Ana, Buena Park, Garden Grove and throughout Los Angeles and Orange Counties.

Read more

Fake Cover Letters Reveal Disability Discrimination in Hiring Process, Study Finds

Fake Cover Letters Reveal Disability Discrimination in Hiring Process, Study Finds

Disclosing a physical or mental disability in a cover letter can lead to disability discrimination in the hiring process, researchers from Syracuse and Rutgers universities have recently discovered.

In fact, according to these researchers’ findings, employers are about 25 percent less likely to express interest in job applicants who disclose disabilities in cover letters than applicants who don’t. And this discovery may be an important factor in explaining why disabled individuals are about 54 percent less likely to be employed than abled-bodied individuals.

Details of the Study

In evaluating how employers react to disabled job applicants, researchers developed thousands of fictitious résumés and cover letters. These fake résumés and letters were all focused on accounting positions, as researchers noted that the impairments selected would not affect applicants’ abilities to perform the accounting work/job.

Of these fake applications, half were for inexperienced, recent graduates while the other half were for experienced, qualified candidates. For each of these pools of applications, researchers created further distinctions, making:

  • 1/3 for applicants who disclosed no disability
  • 1/3 for applicants who had a spinal injury (e.g., a physical impairment)
  • 1/3 for applicants who had a mental impairment (e.g., Asperger’s syndrome).

Upon sending out these fake applications, researchers ended up finding that:

  • Applicants to disclosed either a physical or mental impairment in their application were less likely to be contacted by employers even when they were experienced and qualified for the position.
  • There was not a difference in interest when candidates had a physical versus a mental impairment. Instead, employers’ interest in these candidates seemed to decline as the candidates had more
  • Employers who are covered by federal anti-discrimination laws, as well as those who regularly bid on government contract, generally exhibited less discriminatory behaviors than employers not affected by these laws or contracts.

These findings led to the conclusion that:

The overall pattern of findings is consistent with the idea that disability discrimination continues to impede employment prospects of people with disabilities, and more attention needs to be paid to employer behavior and the demand side of the labor market for people with disabilities.

Contact a Los Angeles Discrimination Attorney at Moon and Yang Professional Corporation

If you have been discriminated against by an employer due to a disability (or another reason), you can turn to an experienced Los Angeles discrimination attorney at the Moon and Yang Professional Corporation for aggressive, effective legal advocacy in your pursuit of justice.

At Moon & Yang, our lawyers are trial attorneys with significant experience representing both individuals and businesses in state and federal courts at both the trial and appellate levels.

To find out more about our services and how we can help you, contact us today by calling (213) 232-3128 or by emailing us using the contact form on this page.

From our offices based in Los Angeles, our trusted lawyer provide superior service to clients throughout Southern California, including those in Koreatown, Orange, Anaheim, Santa Ana, Buena Park, Garden Grove and throughout Los Angeles and Orange Counties.

Read more